[akira2501]

> and an even higher chance of getting kicked out of banking

So you can never have them as a customer again for life. This is a fine strategy as long as the very small number of people who end up here do so intentionally and after much effort. Thus proving that they will always be more trouble than they're worth.

If it's a penalty for making a single mistake that you were enabled to make then this is not going to end anywhere good for any involved party.

> In a high trust society

This gets bandied about so often it's nearly meaningless now; however, on a basic level, I do not trust my bank. I'm guessing most of their current customers don't either. So they reap what they sow.

> This isn't being asleep at the wheel either; it's prioritizing availability over accuracy

Which made since in the 1970s. We're a bit past that now, and for a multi billion dollar institution to blithely allow this happen today is absurd.

[fallingsquirrel]

Suppose Chase's system has a momentary outage. Which headline would you rather see?

1: Three idiots on tiktok steal petty cash from the ATM and go to prison

2: Millions of Chase customers' lives grind to a halt as they can't withdraw cash to buy groceries

Or are you arguing for option 3: Software is perfect and we just simply never have any outages, ever.

[akira2501]

You have entirely detached yourself from the details of the story. These people deposited fake checks. Then withdrew against the fake balance. Stopping this outright is not going to stop people from buying groceries with real balance.